166	A Short History of the Middle East
money than the Iraq Rebellion, and the French had twice found it
necessary to bombard the centre of Damascus by artillery and air-
craft, killing over a thousand persons. The revolt had, however,
taught the French that it was impossible to hold down Syria in-
definitely by martial law. The series of military High Com-
missioners was ended in November 1925, and in 1926 the first
High Commissioner with civil administrative experience was ap-
pointed. The Lebanese Republic had been proclaimed in 1926, and
an attempt was made to reach an understanding with the more
moderate Syrian nationalists, but without success; the first two
nominal Presidents of Syria were both aliens, a Turk and a Cir-
cassian.
B. The Inter-War Period
The unilateral British declaration of Egyptian independence in
1922 did not immediately bring about the end of violent agitation,
since the Wafd refused to accept the limitations imposed on
Egyptian sovereignty by the Four Reserved Points. Encouraged
by the successes of the Turkish nationalists in extorting major con-
cessions from Britain and France by armed force, the Wafd con-
ducted a murder campaign inspired by well-educated fanatics and
executed by weak-minded students and a number of professional
killers. In Cairo four British subjects and two Egyptian moderates
were murdered, and nine British wounded. The Egyptian public,
intimidated by the terrorists, gave no help to the police, and it was
left to a special force under British direction to track them down:
three students were executed and ten imprisoned.
At the beginning of 1924 general elections had produced the
combination of the first Wafdist government in Egypt and the
first Labour government in Britain, some of whose members when
in Opposition had shown sympathy for Wafdist aspirations.
Zaghlul was invited to London to negotiate, but demanded in
effect complete independence, with the withdrawal of all British
troops, the return of die Sudan to Egypt, etc. This was far too much
for the British government which observed that, while British
troops would not interfere in the functioning of the Egyptian
government nor encroach on its sovereignty, no British govern-
ment could divest itself of all interest in the defence of the Canal,